340 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
r April 25, 1889. 
spots and being impossible to find elsewhere, even in the immediate 
vicinity. The flowers (fig. 53) represent examples that have been sent 
to us during the past week, and as arranged in a vase are gracefully 
attractive. 
THE DAHLIA. 
[Read at a meeting of the Horticultural Club by Mr. T. W. Girdlestone.J 
The Dahlia, of which there arc several species, although probably 
not more than one is materially responsible for the varieties now cul¬ 
tivated in gardens, is a native of Mexico, where it was originally found 
growing in sandy meadows at an elevation of 5000 feet above the sea, 
by Hernandez, physician to Philip II. of Spain ; and it is consequently 
natural enough that the plant should have made its first appearance in 
Europe at Madrid, where Dahlia variabilis was flowered by Professor 
Cavanilles in the Royal Gardens from seed received from Mexico in 
1789, the Professor naming his acquisition in honour of Andreas Dahl, 
a distinguished Swedish botanist and pupil of Linnaeus. 
At that time Lord Bute was English ambassador at Madrid, and in 
the same year—that is to say just a hundred years ago—Lady Bute sent 
seeds home to the Royal Gardens at Kew, and thus first introduced 
the Dahlia into England. Seed was also sent in 1804 by Lady Holland, 
who brought it in that year from Madrid ; and it was among the seed¬ 
lings then raised in the gardens of Holland House under the care of 
Mr. Buonaniti that the two first double varieties seen in Europe were 
obtained. 
These varieties have been sometimes referred to as the first double 
Dahlias ; but if report say true, double flowers must have been known 
in Mexico long before the Dahlia was introduced into Europe at all, 
for in the “ Floricultural Cabinet ” for 1858 it is recorded that “ Figures 
of a single and double Dahlia have been found in an old work on the 
natural history of Mexico, published at Rome in 1651. In this work 
there is a very correct figure of a double Dahlia under the name of 
Cocoxochitl, with violet coloured ray florets and a very conspicuous 
yellow disc.” 
Of other species the stately Dahlia arborea is not hardy enough to be 
grown out of doors in this country, and is not generally considered to be 
worthy of house room. It appears doubtful whether Dahlia coccinea 
can be maintained as a good species; and though frequent attempts 
have been made to employ the pretty little Dahlia glabrata (of which 
seeds were sent from Mexico to the Royal Horticultural Society by 
George Frederick Dickson, and of which a good figure was published in 
the “Botanical Magazine” in 1840) as a means of obtaining plants of 
dwarf habit, the varieties raised, while sometimes of small stature 
have rarely been valuable, on account of their weak flower stems’ 
whereby the flowers, being more or less pendulous, are ineffective on the 
plant. 
A footnote to the page on which the description of Dahlia glabrata 
occurs in the 26th volume of the “ Botanical Magazine,” giving the 
reasons why the name of the plant should be pronounced “ Dahlia,” and 
not “ Dalea,” is worthy of the consideration of the Dahlia-growing 
public. 
For practical purposes, therefore, the Dahlias of gardens may be re¬ 
garded as varieties of Dahlia variabilis—perhaps the best named plant 
in the world ; and a good figure of an early variety of this unstable 
flower may be found in the first volume of the “ Botanical Magazine,” 
where a large single flower is portrayed having rich velvety crimson 
petals (as the ray florets are generally called by gardeners for con¬ 
venience) 2 inches long, but decidedly narrow, and with a not very 
conspicuous yellow disc whose diameter is hardly more than a seventh 
of that of the whole flower. This plant is described as having been 
received from France, where, about 1800, the cultivation of the Dahlia 
was energetically undertaken for the sake of the tubers, which were 
said to be eatable. - They proved, however, too acrid either for man or 
beast, and the French growers then turned their attention to the flower, 
with the result that for some years the number of new varieties 
imported from Paris was considerable. 
As soon as double flowers were obtained the singles seem to have 
been entirely discarded ; at any rate, they disappeared from the cata¬ 
logues, and the florists waged a war of extermination against the yellow 
eye of the natural flower. 
In the “ Annual Dahlia Register ” for 1836 there is an interesting 
series of excellent coloured plates of the Dahlias most in vogue among 
exhibitors at that time, but of all the three or four dozen varieties 
figured there are only three or four that have the quilled petals that 
characterise the modern Show Dahlia. Nearly all the flowers are flat- 
petalled, being of much the same character as what are now becoming 
so popular as “ Decorative Dahlias ; ” and when it is stated that Picta- 
formosissima was frequently seen in winning stands, at any rate up till 
about 1840, those who have grown that “grand old Dahlia” recently 
will easily realise the extent of the development of the modern Show 
Dahlia. 
This development must nevertheless have been rapid between 1840 
and 1850, for in a treatise on the Dahlia by Robert Hogg*, published in 
1853, there occur some coloured plates by Andrews of some of the 
flowers then most fashionable, which do not differ materially, except in 
point of size, from the present Show type, though nearly all lack finish 
and refinement. 
A careful examination of these plates should make it easy to dis¬ 
prove the statement, which has been so often made, that Show Dahlias, 
are no better now than they were thirty years ago. If the statement 
were true the question would immediately arise, Why are not these 
older varieties exhibited 1 For a glance at Mr. Mawley’s careful records 
of the Dahlias exhibited the last six years at the National Dahlia Show 
reveals the fact that hardly one of these winning flowers is of earlier 
date than somewhere in the ’70’s. 
Very early in the day varieties with striped or spotted flowers seem 
to have been obtained, but they were generally inferior in form and 
size to the self-coloured blooms. Presumably on this account a distinc¬ 
tion was made between “ Show ” and “ Fancy ” flowers, so that the 
latter might be exhibited by themselves, and their improvement 
encouraged. The distinction has been a puzzling one to many begin¬ 
ners in Dahlia culture at various times, not only because Fancies so 
often come self, but because a flower with a light tip is a “Fancy,”' 
but a flower with a dark tip is not. 
In the “ Floricultural Cabinet ” for 1860, an article on new Dahlias 
signed “ D.,” begins as follows :—“ Tell me where does fancy dwell ?” 
(this is given in inverted commas, presumably as a quotation, but the 
author’s name is not mentioned !), for certainly it is most puzzling to 
tell what are the principles on which the separation has been made— 
white with a purple tip is a ‘ Dahlia,’ but purple with a white tip is a 
‘ Fancy.’ Very odd! However, the division is made, and there, I suppose, 
it will remain, so we must abide by it.” However, the distinction 
served its turn, and now that Fancies have been raised to the level of 
the best Show sorts, the separation of the striped and tipped flowers 
from the seifs has been to a great extent abolished at the exhibitions 
of the National Dahlia Society. 
In addition to these two classes, now merged in one under the 
appellation of show Dahlias, there are three other types, recognised in 
these days even by exhibitors—namely, the Pompon, the Decorative (or 
Cactus), and the single Dahlia. Of these the first has flowers similar in 
form to the Show type, but much less in size : the second are most ad¬ 
mired when possessing flat petals, the type being Dahlia Juarezi, which 
was imported (I believe) direct from Mexico, by way of Portugal or 
Spain, and whose petals are flat, pointed, and slightly twisted ; while 
the single Dahlias represent the natural form of the flower in the wild 
state, only greatly improved in outline and substance. 
The culture of all Dahlias is simple in the extreme, as they will grow 
in almost any soil or situation, but in the case of the Show type con¬ 
siderable experience is needed to know which varieties should for ex¬ 
hibition purposes be vigorously thinned out and disbudded, and which 
will only thereby be rendered coarse and ungainly. For the points of 
merit in a Show Dahlia remain the same as when first laid down any 
number of years ago—namely, first form, then colour, and lastly size ; 
for it is only “ when other properties are equal that size will determine 
the preference,” and “ in no instance should either form or colour be 
sacrificed to size.”—( Vide “ Floriculture,” by J. Mantel, F.L.S., about 
1834.) 
There is another important point that was insisted upon by the older 
florists, but which has often been neglected by modern raisers to the 
injury of the reputation of the Dahlia as a garden plant—namely, that 
“ the flower should be erect and stand completely above the foliage.” 
Varieties are not infrequently met with having flower stems so weak 
that the flowers are pendulous and quite ineffective on the plant. In 
fact, habit of growth in Dahlias of all classes is a matter which ought 
to obtain the most careful consideration of all raisers. 
It may perhaps be of interest to enumerate the twelve best Fancies, 
and eighteen best Show Dahlias for exhibition, according to Mr. Mawley’s 
analyses of the National Show for the past six years. They are :—Twelve 
best Fancy—Gaiety, Mrs. Saunders, Rev. J. B. M. Camm, Chorister, Flora 
Wyatt, Henry Eckford, Mrs. N. Halls, Professor Fawcett, George Barnes, 
* Dr. Robert Hogg of the Journal of Horticulture. 
